Earth Extinction 2030 - Guy McPherson - Thom Hartmann -

On Thom Hartmann today:

Guy McPherson discusses his latest book Going Dark.
"Our planet is currently entering Hospice"

We are the last individuals of our species on Earth. How shall we respond? How shall we act? If industrial civilization is maintained, climate change will cause human extinction in the near term.

Going Dark peels the shadow from the cosy dreams we've all bought into -- that technology will save us from climate change; that the products we consume are endless and untainted; that our modern idea of happiness and convenience doesn't crush others; that the heartbeat of the industrial economy that pulses within us is sustainable and ethical. McPherson's latest work will make you think twice.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=UQuv8fETfME

I don't really know Guy, we've conversed just a tiny bit, but he sure seems completely sincere, extremely bright, very thorough, and appears to have no alternate or hidden agenda. After all, what agenda could you have with a message like this?

His revelations shocked me, shook me to my core.

Part of me wants badly to believe that I made a soul contract to come here and help prevent this, to help us make the 180° turn necessary to prevent this and find harmony. That part of me is gobsmacked by the data, or maybe covered in a "pie in the face" by a cosmic joke.

The ONLY thing that niggles (is "niggles" really a word?) at me is that the Global Rulers press-on in exactly the same ecocidal fashion, or even in a ramped-up fashion, destroying this ecosystem and species as if it was a video game. It is impossible for me to believe that the Global Rulers do not know the same things that Guy McPherson knows. So, how can the Global Rulers NOT react by at least pulling out the free energy technology, attempting to put the brakes on the runaway train? I can't think like a sociopath, but what's in it for them to keep going on? Are they attempting to ramp-up the police state and Homeland Security (whatever your nation's version is) to provide a first/second wall of defense, to make it more difficult for the peasants (that would be us) to put them in the guillotine?

If (as is speculated by some at Avalon), the Global Rulers are going "off-world" (Mars, or somewhere else), then with less than 2 decades left before departure (and that would be cutting it close), wouldn't they be wrapping up any and all Earth (and scorched Earth) projects? Why are they (seemingly) not reacting to this?

Dennis

p.s. Edit, to add:

How many of you simply refuse to believe this could even be possible, and will simply dismiss this info? It is DEEPLY disturbing, soul-wrenching, to even examine the possibility that this is true.

...and why keep chemtrailing? If it was actually intended to reflect sunlight, then it doesn't matter, and if it was to create havoc with the human food supply, why bother?

Imagine a minimum-security prison for non-violent criminals at the foot of a volcano - a long dormant volcano. Now the volcano springs to life, and everyone in the prison will be covered in lava. Within days, it will erupt. Can you even imagine the guards continuing to harass and beat the prisoners and feed them slop until the prison is consumed by lava?

I'm not asking rhetorical questions - I'm looking for dialogue. How can Guy McPherson's info be correct and the Global Rulers have not shifted gears?

Dennis

You're right Dennis, it doesn't make sense that the global elite would turn this beautiful planet into a toxic and uninhabitable dump. Even if they did have off-world places to go, it makes no sense to destroy this place. If they could go off-world, wouldn't in make more sense to go mine resources off world and keep the home planet pristine?
I have long thought there's another thing that doesn't make sense. Hang with me for a moment. The entire world revolves around petroleum products and dirty energy sources. The two biggest industries on the planet: oil and war, are dominated by the richest families and corporations. In order for our planet to maintain it's ability to sustain our lives, we have got to switch the entire planet's infrastructure from a petroleum based civilization to one that operates on a new, clean, sustainable energy. This is going to require trillions of dollars of investment. Who better to initiate this switch, and profit from it, than the people and corporations that are currently in these largest industries and have the kind of capital that will be needed. There are trillions upon trillions in profits to be made transforming the energy infrastructure of this planet. In fact, I might guess it is the single most profitable industry of the future.
Why would they be opposed to making their fortunes in such a way as to live in harmony with and preserve this planet?
I don't care if they want to make billions of dollars but I believe it can be done without screwing the rest of us.
Like I said, there is much about this that doesn't make sense.

Matt

Pretty uncomfortable to even think about it, isn't it. (So, most people won't.)

Dennis

It does seem insane and incongruous that the elite controllers would destroy the very host planet which gives them life, towards their own extinction, with full knowledge of what they are doing.

My take is, you cannot view the answer through your empathic nature without a full understanding of psychopathy. To put it bluntly, the elite can kill their own host and foster their own extinction and ignore the posterity of their children because they are INSANE. They have no heart and there is no sense of "other" in the psychopath.

David Icke gets asked this question all the time, and I think his take on it it as close as it gets. his "Dot Connector" series on TPV is a must listen. Start with EP#2

https://youtube.com/watch?v=wn8bM4jAXWk

If one supports the idea there are worldwide rulers, and that they've been such for many centuries, it wouldn't make logical sense that these rulers would support anything that threatens their spanning careers, as well as the careers of their offspring.

Certainly the destruction of a planet would threaten this rule.

Wouldn't an industry-supported reign of destructive, material-obsessed, omnipotent greed make more sense so as to pinpoint this culprit?

But who is to blame for a bursting-at-the-seams commercial industry?

The corporations?

But we only supply the demand we receive.

That's how money is made.

So the consumers are able to live the lives they make purchases continually to support.

Regardless of the how-abouts, a corporation will only sell or distribute what will make it's shareholders more money.

Suppliers that produce this trend are utilized.

If our customers purchase olive oil instead of canola oil, our buyers are going to purchase more olive oil than canola oil.

If canola oil is more destructive to the environment, this becomes good news for the planet.

If otherwise, just the opposite occurs.

Should the corporation be at blame?

Or should the consumer?

Who came first?

Demand or supply?

Can a corporation exist if no one buys their product?

DeLorean Motor Co.

Lionel.

Pets.com.

Can a peoples exist where greed is not fostered?

Wouldn't it be unnatural to remove something completely natural to most people's biology, this greed?

Industry and consumerism should be in balance with the environment that supports them.

And the rulers, should they exist, are they stringing both sides along to an intended compromise, or have they found a retreat from it all and set the world to auto-parent?

DO the global rulers know of or are aware of something we don't know of? something as simple as reincarnation after devastation is finished to a belief they will be hoarded off rewarded for destroying this speck in the universe?

Unsure but still confused, but most are asleep so are not ready for when the you know what gets flung off the spinning you know what.

Quote:

---

Posted by Craig

DO the global rulers know of or are aware of something we don't know of?

---

If such rulers exist, it would be logical that they'd know much, much more than the common man who enjoys his beverages bland.

You don't become a master of any trade, world domination included, by being like everyone else.

Quote:

---

Posted by gripreaper

David Icke gets asked this question all the time, and I think his take on it it as close as it gets. his "Dot Connector" series on TPV is a must listen. Start with EP#2

https://youtube.com/watch?v=wn8bM4jAXWk

---

Well worth a listen !

Reading the dialogue with 'The Hidden Hand' a while ago put the behaviour of the 'global rulers' in a very different perspective for me.

It now makes sense to me that as long as the greater mass of humanity is 'lost in the story' and content in their dependancy, unprepared to take full responsibility for their choices the directors behind the scenes will continue to push us to the wall.

They are only acting as a catalyst to goad us into taking full responsibility for our created reality and allow us to finally begin to exercise our free will in conscious co-creation.

All of these questions are valid, and are based on common sense... Guy answers all these questions here: (it's long, but thorough - READ IT ALL, INCL. LINKS)
http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/clim...ry-and-update/
If you’re too busy to read the evidence presented at above link, here’s the bottom line:
On a planet 4 C hotter than baseline, all we can prepare for is human extinction!

snippets:
As pointed out in March 2012 in Nature Climate Change, several psychological reasons explain why people have a hard time dealing with the stark reality of climate change (David Roberts comments at length in his article at Grist:
1. To the extent that climate change is an abstract concept, it is non intuitive and cognitively difficult to grasp.
2. Our moral judgement system is finely tuned to react to intentional transgressions — not unintentional ones.
3. Things that make us feel guilty provoke self-defensive mechanisms.
4. Uncertainty breeds wishful thinking, so the lack of definitive prognoses results in unreasonable optimism.
5. Our division into moral and political tribes generates ideological polarization; climate change becomes politicized.
6. Events do not seem urgent when they seem to be far away in time and space; out-group victims fall by the wayside.
http://guymcpherson.com/2014/01/picking-cherries/

According to Yvo de Boer, who was executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2009, when attempts to reach a deal at a summit in Copenhagen crumbled with a rift between industrialized and developing nations, “the only way that a 2015 agreement can achieve a 2-degree goal is to shut down the whole global economy.” Politicians finally have caught up with Tim Garrett’s excellent paper in Climatic Change.

Let’s ignore the models for a moment and consider only the results of a single briefing to the United Nations Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen (COP15).

Regulars in this space will recall COP15 as the climate-change meetings thrown under the bus by the Obama administration. A summary of that long-forgotten briefing contains this statement:
“THE LONG-TERM SEA LEVEL THAT CORRESPONDS TO CURRENT CO2 CONCENTRATION IS ABOUT 23 METERS ABOVE TODAY’S LEVELS, AND THE TEMPERATURES WILL BE 6 DEGREES C OR MORE HIGHER. THESE ESTIMATES ARE BASED ON REAL LONG TERM CLIMATE RECORDS, NOT ON MODELS.”

In other words, near-term extinction of humans was already guaranteed, to the knowledge of Obama and his administration (i.e., the Central Intelligence Agency, which runs the United States and controls presidential power). Even before the dire feedbacks were reported by the scientific community, the administration abandoned climate change as a significant issue because it knew we were done as early as 2009. Rather than shoulder the unenviable task of truth-teller, Obama did as his imperial higher-ups demanded: He lied about collapse, and he lied about climate change. And he still does...... They know.. they all knew 5 years ago...

It's never been about wars. It's never been about the economy, or carbon tax, or sustainability, or overlords, or banking, or the sun, or the bible, or planet X, etc.
"It's about the Climate stupid".. (to paraphrase) Everything else is just THEATER.... Playing a violin on the deck of the Titanic.

And it's not, according to Guy, about escape, or a last minute fix.. It's now about how to die with dignity! Anyone associated with Hospice will understand.

Quote:

---

Posted by Dennis Leahy

I don't really know Guy, we've conversed just a tiny bit, but he sure seems completely sincere, extremely bright, very thorough, and appears to have no alternate or hidden agenda. After all, what agenda could you have with a message like this?

His revelations shocked me, shook me to my core.
...
How many of you simply refuse to believe this could even be possible, and will simply dismiss this info? It is DEEPLY disturbing, soul-wrenching, to even examine the possibility that this is true.

---

I have been working off a similar approach to McPherson's (though hadn't heard of him previously) for a few decades now and agree with some of his analysis while disagree with other aspects of it. Personally I view that the tipping point was passed about a decade ago and everything that has been going on since has been in an effort to either slow the inevitable, distract from the inevitable or simply "shuffle the deck chairs".

McPherson has a very early date set for decline (most place many of the convergence factors [oil, phosphorus, nitrogen, CO2, potable water, arable land, nutrient pollution, ocean acidification] involved in a descent scenario starting to become a problem between 2050 - 2080). McPherson's early date is probably partly due, and I'm only guessing at his motives here, to his need to propagate a message of urgency in the vain belief that something can still be done to stop it. He also bases much of his thinking on energy descent and while I would agree with his logic here, I don't think the decline will be that rapid or that the feed-back mechanisms will be that powerful initially. Also I don't understand his view on nuclear being a trigger mechanism for a mass extinction event in an energy descent scenario, though also see no reason to use nuclear when solar/geothermal/hydro/wind can do just as well. In Tasmania it's all hydro/wind power and we export electricity to mainland Australia (there is an old gas power plant that hasn't been in operation for years and is kept in a working state just in case there is a drought that stops the hydro and the winds suddenly stop blowing). The mainland could use solar concentrators to power the country's grid (something like this system being developed by IBM maybe) though there are heaps of other options also available.

I know McPherson says in the interview that he thinks it can't be fixed etc however his entire approach counters that. There are a large number of people, myself included, who get frustrated by the lack of collective will to move for positive change in sustainable community design. Mutter, mutter, mutter...

Now, here's some more information that members here may not have come across. First a TEDx talk by Dr Mike Coffin, a marine geoscientist, that was given in Hobart earlier this year. In this talk Dr Coffin explains the concept of mass extinction very well and talks about his research into the reasons for the previous 5. Below the video are a few images and a paper used in the talk that I've linked to for anyone who is interested:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=3vyreb8y_zg

Geologic Clock
Extinction intensity
Rockström et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity.

The paper by Rockström et al. is important, in my opinion, as it gives boundaries that can be worked from in sustainable planning on the global level and in some aspects at the regional level as well. There's a lot more to this but I really don't want to go on. In addition to the 2009 paper Rockström et al. also submitted a paper in 2013 to the High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda titled Sustainable Development and Planetary Boundaries. In this paper there's an interesting section that talks about the approaches that are usually adopted:

Quote:

---

What are the implications of planetary boundaries for economic growth?
This question is usually answered with reference to three unattractive alternatives:

1. Kick away the ladder: The rich world is lucky to have reached a high level of income first. Low- and middle-income countries cannot grow further, to ensure the world stays within planetary boundaries.

2. Contract and converge: Rich countries need to substantially reduce their standard of living, and developing countries can grow until they converge at the lower income of high-income countries. At that point economic growth would need to stop.

3. Business as usual (BAU): In the absence of a shared global framework individual countries fail to acknowledge planetary boundaries in national policy making. They each scramble for scarce resources. Fossil fuel and food prices soar, and planetary boundaries are exceeded as the middle-income countries catch up with the high-income countries. The weakest countries find themselves pushed out of the marketplace and fail to develop. This zero-sum or negative-sum struggle can easily turn nasty. Richer countries will guard their advantage with military force if necessary (Annex II describes the BAU scenario in detail).

Source: Rockström et al. 2013. Sustainable Development and Planetary Boundaries, p.5-6

---

Rockström et al. then go onto explain a possible different approach:

Quote:

---

We therefore believe that the BAU path is the most likely scenario and that it will lead to a highly unequal world that is also unstable and often violent. We know that the rich and powerful have a high tolerance for massive inequalities in wealth, income, and physical security. Yet we also believe that humanity can and should aim much higher than an open competition for increasingly scarce global resources. Rather than knowingly crossing the planetary boundaries, the world can agree and cooperate on living within the playing field they imply, by adopting improved technologies, stabilizing the world’s population, and protecting threatened species and ecosystems.
p. 6

---

It's quite an interesting publication and I'd recommend anyone who is interested in this subject to have a look at it.

Anyway, that's enough from me tonight on this.

-- Pan.

Papers by Rockström et al.:
Rockström, J et al. 2009 “A safe operating space for humanity.” Nature 461: 472-475.
Rockström, J et al. 2009 “Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” Ecology and Society 14(2): 32.
Rockström, J et al. 2013. “Sustainable Development and Planetary Boundaries.”

Since posting this yesterday, I have watched a few McPherson videos, and I believe what he is saying - out-rightly, and obliquely - is quite simple. And it parallels my attitude and experience with Hospice care. We will only get through this if we have a global and total economic collapse. We need to really concentrate on the how-to's of "Letting Go"... The earth and our future is in the balance... The sooner the better. Bitter yes, scary - as hell! Welcome the Crash.. it's our only choice, and chance..

I'm watching the McPherson video now. He seems to be promoting the idea that global warming will destroy the Earth by 2030, which is basically the type of fear that the NWO seems to be pushing to get support for a global carbon tax to fund global agencies, global enforcement, and global control.

I'm not saying that the current cycle of warming that we would typically be at a peak of now absolutely won't continue, but letting the fear of the possibility be used to put the human race under complete control is a bad idea. Notice in the chart below that carbon levels along with climate have changed together without human industry to create the carbon cyclically through the past:

http://simpleclimate.files.wordpress...012/04/edc.jpg

I will add this:
I'm not saying that Guy McPherson is in support of the NWO, but that the NWO wants people completely convinced that there is global warming that will destroy the Earth, so that people will support control by global groups in the name of stopping it.

Quote:

---

Posted by SEAM

...

In other words, near-term extinction of humans was already guaranteed, to the knowledge of Obama and his administration (i.e., the Central Intelligence Agency, which runs the United States and controls presidential power). Even before the dire feedbacks were reported by the scientific community, the administration abandoned climate change as a significant issue because it knew we were done as early as 2009. Rather than shoulder the unenviable task of truth-teller, Obama did as his imperial higher-ups demanded: He lied about collapse, and he lied about climate change. And he still does...... They know.. they all knew 5 years ago...

---

For me, questions remain: why don't those at the top of the pyramid change their day-to-day operations? They may be sociopaths, but they're not stupid. They gain nothing by continuing with much of their above-ground activity. I can see why they'd be scrambling to do final touches on their underground cities and (if true) their off-world (Martian?) city/bunker/dome/whatever, but what advantage is there in continuing with terrorizing humanity if we're all going to be dead in a couple of decades?

If mass extinction including all above-ground humans is inevitable with the rising temperature, why not do whatever they can to keep the temperature rise as low as possible to try to ensure that SOME non-human species live through the 6th extinction? If they cannot, then they also cannot terraform Mars.

With replacement body parts and anti-aging technology, they might live to be 200 or 300 down in their rabbit holes, but do they really want to live underground on a planet that used to be stunningly beautiful with a biodiversity quite likely rivaling any planet in the physical Universe? They may despise humans (outside their Elite Clique) but do they also despise the entire web of life?

Maybe they have no clue what to do. They have non-polluting free-energy technology, but can't figure out any model of using it to reverse the "positive feedback loops." They know they could replace all fossil fuel use worldwide, (which might have just barely worked 50 years ago) but have now hesitated too long (due to greed) and that window of opportunity has passed - and now they've written-off terrestrial and aquatic life on planet Earth.

I am of the opinion that there are a handful of omnipotent humans ("Global Rulers"), and not just a few hundred corporate conglomerates that rule their own mega-corporate sovereign empires and happen to interconnect when it is mutually beneficial. Maybe I'm wrong, and this small group that I imagine controlling the world from atop the pyramid don't even really exist with that much power. Maybe all the Rothschild empire really does is control the money, which puts them "in" everything, but not with the ability to directly "control" everything. For example, maybe no one but the oil company empires' CEOs and board members could order the global switch to non-polluting, non-fossil fuels... and they refuse, regardless of creating the 6th extinction and even killing themselves, their offspring, and their planet.

Maybe greed is a disease that is so powerful - a hundred times more addictive that alcohol or heroin - that they just cannot stop, and they will not stop. (If only they had sane sons and daughters and people in their inner circle that could commit 'regicide' and remove their influence... ah, but would their seat be snatched up by yet another of the same ilk.)

I am examining all of this seriously, and intend to live my life on Earth as best I can, as compassionate and loving as I can until I leave. I'll do my best not to be bitter about coming to Earth to witness this, to live this and to die in this, and to be a planetary hospice worker.

Dennis

I hear you Dennis. You get it. Now go visit your neighbor 2 blocks away and bring them up to speed - can't be done. We're dealing with a world, with an average 5th grade mentality. THEy know that.. This current administration can't even prosecute the wall streeters who are behind much of this.

We are in the midst of the 2nd "Great Dying".. And the 5 stages of grief are being displayed in this post as I speak.

Denial. The starting point for planetary hospice is to consider what the societal mental
health profile looks like in relation to the stages of grief that ensue from the time of rendering a
terminal diagnosis. We have been in the grips of the first stage of grieving - denial - for some
time now, and in fact even for those who now acknowledge the reality of global climate change,
there is still quite a bit of denial concerning the seriousness of our situation and the pace of it.

Anger. If this analysis is justified, then we can conclude that we have collectively been
in a state of denial about the mortality of our species (and the effect we are having on creation
itself) for some time now, and that this denial is associated with increasing prevalence of anxiety
and depression in the population as a whole. It at least seems plausible. After all, most of the
increases came during a time of growing economic prosperity when the quality of life for most
Americans was improving. What other explanations might account for such an epidemic in these
particular pathologies? And for most of this time, thanks to irresponsible reporting in
mainstream media and a political system corrupted by money, it has been quite feasible to
maintain this state of denial, such as by pretending that the science was equivocal. In just the
past few years, however, scientists have become much more politically engaged themselves, and
the evidence has become irrefutable. In other words, relating this back to stages of grief, we can
say that we are likely (slowly) emerging from the first stage of denial.

From here: http://workthatreconnects.org/wp-con...ry-Hospice.pdf

I'm beginning to think that the global elite aren't really the far-sighted, devious, intellectual giants we imagine them to be.
Human beings have a terrible tendency to embrace and cling to beliefs that support what they want to do (despite what may be the truth) and I suspect 'they' may be just as asleep and deeply into denial as the vast majority of humanity.
We see cronyism and cover-ups at every level of society...whether it's the neighbor covering for the buddy who is cheating on his spouse and risking the destruction of a family to the government official covering for the CEO who is dumping toxic waste and risking the destruction of a community.
People will generally do what they think they must to cover their own ass and ensure the continuity of their own status quo.
I also think that the degree that one is willing to engage in cover-up is directly proportional to how much one stands to lose by discovery.
Am I defending it? Absolutely not.
But it does make me wonder if we are not assigning too much intellectual power to the elites.